I think there's a difference between truth-in-labeling and "standards". Calling an inkjet print a platinum print is false labeling, and can be demonstrated through physical analysis. But setting "standards" to determine what is and isn't acceptable is a throwback to the Beaux-Arts world of 18th and 19th century genre painting where there was an "Academy" determining what was or was not acceptable subject matter and technique in painting and sculpture. THAT is the last thing APUG/Photrio needs to be.
I still think that sets Photrio/APUG up for becoming some kind of arbiter, and for that arbitration to have any kind of meaningful effect, it would require some kind of enforcement action. While I personally feel membership here has value, as do most of the members, the only thing Photrio/APUG would be able to do enforcement-wise would be to conduct a public shaming ritual and terminate a membership here. Given that if someone were willing to post something here and lie about the fact it was an inkjet print instead of an actual platinum print, they would probably feel no shame about being publicly called out about it, and that losing membership in the site would at most cost them a year's membership fee, I don't see how any kind of "enforcement" action would have any meaning. And I really don't see anyone here in management wanting to get involved in any kind of "enforcement" activity. Photrio/APUG is a loosely-chartered social group, not a professional association.My proposal is not to set standards for "acceptability", but rather to more standards for "applicability". The Pt example is simplistic for sure, but illustrates the idea that using the term "platinum print" should be applied to prints or even scans of prints in which the print was actually produced using platinum chemistry. Wile images digitally or otherwise manipulated to have the appearance of platinum prints should be labelled as "simulated platinum prints" or something of that nature. Doing chemical analysis is more about enforcement, and I really am not suggesting APUG or the standards I proposed should be enforced; though if someone sold a print as a "platinum print" and referenced the standard which stated that platinum chemistry (perhaps with other qualifiers) were used, but the print were strictly a digital image manipulated to look like a platinum print, the standard could potentially be used to bludgeon the seller. If such standards are ever created, I would suggest that it be stated very clearly that the standards are strictly voluntary, and that APUG would not be involved in any enforcement action (other than perhaps informal editorializing on its pages by members). ASME creates standards. Private companies, and even governmental agencies adopt them. ASME does not enforce them, as I understand it, contract law and possibly regulations outside of ASME enforce them indirectly (I.e., you chose ASME standards, now live up to it). ASME may be involved in interpreting. I would suggest the most APUG would do is open a thread to discuss a specific case if there is interest in it so members can provide their personal opinions, or leaving open the possibility of an offended party to join APUG and start a thread if no one does it for them.
My proposal is not to set standards for "acceptability", but rather to more standards for "applicability". The Pt example is simplistic for sure, but illustrates the idea that using the term "platinum print" should be applied to prints or even scans of prints in which the print was actually produced using platinum chemistry. Wile images digitally or otherwise manipulated to have the appearance of platinum prints should be labelled as "simulated platinum prints" or something of that nature. Doing chemical analysis is more about enforcement, and I really am not suggesting APUG or the standards I proposed should be enforced; though if someone sold a print as a "platinum print" and referenced the standard which stated that platinum chemistry (perhaps with other qualifiers) were used, but the print were strictly a digital image manipulated to look like a platinum print, the standard could potentially be used to bludgeon the seller. If such standards are ever created, I would suggest that it be stated very clearly that the standards are strictly voluntary, and that APUG would not be involved in any enforcement action (other than perhaps informal editorializing on its pages by members). ASME creates standards. Private companies, and even governmental agencies adopt them. ASME does not enforce them, as I understand it, contract law and possibly regulations outside of ASME enforce them indirectly (I.e., you chose ASME standards, now live up to it). ASME may be involved in interpreting. I would suggest the most APUG would do is open a thread to discuss a specific case if there is interest in it so members can provide their personal opinions, or leaving open the possibility of an offended party to join APUG and start a thread if no one does it for them.
Making people tell the truth when foisting stinkjet off prints as silver gelatin! Next you will want honesty in politics!
Why not start small and cook up some standards for analog photography. See how it goes with analog first and build up some credibility before moving on to digital.
When does this happen, except perhaps on eBay? Does it happen here on Photrio? Does it happen in galleries? Has anyone ever personally tried to pass off an inkjet print to you as a gelatin silver print?Making people tell the truth when foisting stinkjet off prints as silver gelatin! Next you will want honesty in politics!
When does this happen, except perhaps on eBay? Does it happen here on Photrio? Does it happen in galleries? Has anyone ever personally tried to pass off an inkjet print to you as a gelatin silver print?
There are whole industries of fakes. I don't think passing off inkjet prints as gelatin silver prints is one of them. And as you say, if someone is going to lie about it, he is going to lie about it in both the presence and absence of standards. But this thread has been going on for eight months and we haven't even seen a hint of standards, so it seems to be just talk anyway.Mark while I think standards would be great, I think it is more of an ethical question. Whoever is going to pass off a pigment on watercolor paper as a Tri Gum PT/PD on Glass Print probably isn't going to be truthful when they say it is the real deal, not an elaborate hoax.
That could work. Most of the controversy is in digital.
The of tiny subset of photographers who love that film Vs digital hype try add fake value to whatever they're hoping to sell.
The "controversy" is a marketing game that doesn't appear to be of interest to digital photographers who, it seems, are confident in the value of their images.
The of tiny subset of photographers who love that film Vs digital hype try add fake value to whatever they're hoping to sell.
The "controversy" is a marketing game that doesn't appear to be of interest to digital photographers who, it seems, are confident in the value of their images.
I am not that naive...
You’re funnyThe of tiny subset of photographers who love that film Vs digital hype try add fake value to whatever they're hoping to sell.
The "controversy" is a marketing game that doesn't appear to be of interest to digital photographers who, it seems, are confident in the value of their images.
Really? Then why do some photographers label their inkjet prints as carbon prints??
It seems the desire for standards arise out of the acknowledgement that some photographers are dishonest about how they produce their work. If they’re willing to lie in the first place, I don’t see them adhering to any standards.
...because some inkjet printers use carbon-only ink, even making their own. Wow..I thought everybody knew that!
Some photographers use inkjet to print on hand-made paper. I sometimes print on translucent Japanese rice paper stationary.
...because some inkjet printers use carbon-only ink, even making their own. Wow..I thought everybody knew that!
For carbon transfer printers (myself included) it's misleading. Whatever you print inkjet on, it's still an inkjet. I have nothing against inkjet (I don't do it for my personal work), but we do for my photography program that I teach (although it's 95% analogue).
Why are inkjet prints more photographic than carbon transfer prints?Carbon pigments are carbon pigments. Carbon transfer is its own tangent. If one makes carbon transfer prints one should specify that if one really cares about that. Many more people make inkjet carbon prints than have ever made carbon transfer prints and, of course, inkjet prints are more photographic. The way most people label things counts.
Carbon pigments are carbon pigments. Carbon transfer is its own tangent. If one makes carbon transfer prints one should specify that if one really cares about that. Many more people make inkjet carbon prints than have ever made carbon transfer prints and, of course, inkjet prints are more photographic.
The way most people label things counts. Wiki ain't truth, or even consensus.
An "analogue" photography program is simply a niche photography program. Most photography has been digital for decades.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?